Some people here rightly question why he got twice as long sentence as the top guys. This is the key to understanding what really happened in this case (see bel

Some people here rightly question why he got twice as long sentence as the top guys. This is the key to understanding what really happened in this case (see below). What case? Pure hearsay by real but <cooperating> drug traffickers, woven into a skillful tale of bespoke swimming pools, deliberately painting him as a drug dealer in the jury's minds. The intimidation charge, btw., is explained: it was needed to discredit the traffickers' initial account of him not being involved. Of course, the true reason for changing their story, i.e. successfully reducing their own sentences, would not have played so well for the prosecutor. The only remotely substantiated 'evidence' against him was that he saw some cash. By that count most bankers ought to be in jail with him. So we come to the explanation of the glaring discrepancy in the sentencing: 1) His skills were making life difficult for the police, so he had to be <dealt with>, regardless of justice or law. This is why the prosecutor offered to cut sentencing deals with the real traffickers, just to get him. 2) Being innocent and <not cooperating> are the worst crimes in the US of today. The same principle as in Aaron Schwarz case. Regardless of the details of this case, don't you think that it is just plain wrong that prosecutors can order any 'witness account' they want from most people in their clutches? Years in jail at their discretion is a very powerful inducement, one that must be distorting justice (read framing innocent people) on daily basis.